XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/1/2025 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/1/25 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/1/2025 7:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 19:07:44 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 8/1/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/1/25 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 8/1/2025 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 8/1/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:>>   
   >>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H determines the behavior that   
   >>> *THE   
   >>>>>>>> ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H specifies. Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not and cannot   
   >>>>>>>> possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H so its differing   
   >>>>>>>> behavior *DOES NOT COUNT*.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> NO!!!!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> By that standard, any input could mean anything becuase the machine   
   >>>>>>> it is being given can do whatever it wants with it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞   
   >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn (a) Ĥ   
   copies its   
   >>> input ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yes if you ignore that I said that Ĥ.embedded_H is based on a UTM and   
   >>>>>> ignore the above is the definition of machine Ĥ that could be true.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Based on" does not mean *IS*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you add code to the original UTM, then it no longer is a UTM, and   
   >>>>> its partial simulation is not determative.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> *That is your one huge mistake*   
   >>>> As soon as the repeating pattern emerges then this repeating pattern   
   >>>> *is* determinative.   
   >>>   
   >>> Recognising such a repeating pattern is no different to recognising   
   >>> repeated state in a finite state machine however such a recogniser, a   
   >>> simulating halt decider, is only a partial decider so of little interest   
   >>> as far as the Halting Problem is concerned.   
   >>>   
   >>> /Flibble   
   >>   
   >> My sole purpose is to show that the conventional HP proofs   
   >> do not prove undecidability. I have done that.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And you ignore that it has been shown that any finite pattern you try to   
   > detect becomes wrong,   
   No this is counter-factual.   
   A pattern cannot possibly become wrong.   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
      
   This is stipulated by the basic structure   
   of the relationship between DDD and each HHH.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)